Defence may not be cheap but it is needed now more than ever, says LIAM FOX MP

SOME people say there are no votes in defence.

Defence spending is necessaryGETTY

Cutting defence spending to free up resources for other governmental duties would be dangerous

They may or may not be right but even if they are, does that matter? 

The defence of the realm, the protection of the UK and its people, is the first duty of government. The idea that it should be a discretionary function whose scale should be determined by the popularity of demands for spending in other areas is deeply flawed. 

There are some functions that only the state can carry out and defence is one of them. It does not have the right to short-change us. 

The difference between defence spending and other elements of government is that in defence we need to plan and spend for things we hope we will never have to use but where we would be in danger if we did not. 

The world we live in is a dangerous place, even more so than it was five years ago when we had our last defence review. 

We have seen the rise of IS and the extent of their barbarity. They make no attempt to hide their desire to export jihad to other countries, including ours. The rise of trans-national terrorism is a very real global threat that feeds on the availability of the internet and social media to recruit and on our increasing ability to travel. 

We might wish that things were different but wishful thinking is no basis for a sound foreign or security policy

In my book Rising Tides I point out that there are now nearly 700million websites in the world and more than 500,000 of us in the air travelling at any one moment. 

We have also seen an increasingly aggressive Russia under Putin, who is bullying the small Baltic states once controlled by the former Soviet Union. These countries are Nato members and have the protection of Article 5 of the Nato treaty, with an attack on one being an attack on all. 

So we are only one Russian miscalculation away from a potential conflict on the European continent, something we had come to believe unthinkable. 

Russia’s invasion of Georgia, where it still has troops, its illegal annexation of Crimea by force and its military activity in Ukraine should leave us in no doubt about Putin’s intentions or capabilities. 

We might wish that things were different but wishful thinking is no basis for a sound foreign or security policy. Whether we choose to help the people of Ukraine defend their homeland by giving them the defensive weapons they require – and I believe we should – we need to beef up our collective defences on Nato’s borders in places such as Poland and the Baltic states. 

We also need to understand that Russia has been upgrading its nuclear weapons and missile systems. That makes it more important that we maintain a credible nuclear deterrent to ensure we are able to prevent the threat of the use of such weapons against ourselves and our allies. Along with France and the US we maintain the nuclear elements of the Nato alliance. 

It is a major worry as we near the election that Labour’s Ed Miliband refuses to rule out a deal with the anti-nuclear SNP that could see us lose our ultimate guarantee of security. 

Dr Liam Fox MPGETTY

Dr Liam Fox MP, former secretary of state for defence

The Prime Minister warned last week about this grubby deal that would leave our country vulnerable just so Mr Miliband could get the keys to No 10. We should not be willing to take that risk. 

Of course our continuous at-sea deterrent does not come cheap at around £20billion but that gives us more than 35 years’ protection against nuclear blackmail and we were happy to spend around £9billion on the Olympics. We need to get our priorities right. 

So what is the correct amount to spend on defence? 

As part of our Nato commitment Britain is expected to spend two per cent of GDP. Only four out of 28 members meet this target and I am proud we are one of them at the moment. 

We have been quick to lecture others when they have failed to meet their obligations. It would be a pity if we joined the group that want the insurance policy but expect others to pay the premiums. 

That would not only diminish our security but also our prestige and influence, especially with our closest ally. 

American taxpayers are increasingly frustrated at the failure of European members of Nato to pay their way, expecting the US to pick up more and more of the bill for our collective defence. 

That is not how I want them to view the UK. We have always been willing to carry our share of the burden and that is how we should continue.

Would you like to receive news notifications from Daily Express?